Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
Environment: Momentum Grows to 'Ban the Bulb'
WASHINGTON - On Feb. 20, Australia announced it would phase out the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2010, replacing them with highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs that use one-fourth as much electricity.
If the rest of the world joins Australia in this simple step to sharply cut carbon emissions, the worldwide drop in electricity use would permit the closing of more than 270 coal-fired (500 megawatt) power plants. For the United States, this bulb switch would facilitate shutting down 80 coal-fired plants.
The good news is that the world may be approaching a social tipping point in this shift to efficient light bulbs. On Apr. 25, just two months after Australia's announcement, the Canadian government announced it would phase out sales of incandescents by 2012. Mounting concerns about climate change are driving the bulb replacement movement.
In mid-March, a U.S. coalition of environmental groups -- including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Coalition for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Earth Day Network -- along with Philips Lighting launched an initiative to shift to the more-efficient bulbs in all of the country's estimated four billion sockets by 2016.
In California, the most populous state, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is proposing that his state phase out the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, four years ahead of the coalition's deadline. Levine calls his proposed law the "How Many Legislators Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb Act."
On the U.S. East Coast, the New Jersey legislature is on the verge of requiring state government buildings to replace all incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents by 2010 as part of a broader statewide effort to promote the shift to more-efficient lighting.
The European Union, now numbering 27 countries, announced in March that it plans to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020. Part of this cut will be achieved by replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. In Britain, a nongovernmental group called Ban the Bulb has been vigorously pushing for a ban on incandescents since early 2006.
Further east, Moscow is urging residents to switch to compact fluorescents. In New Zealand, Climate Change Minister David Parker has announced that his country may take similar measures to those adopted by Australia.
Last month, Greenpeace urged the government of India to ban incandescents in order to cut carbon emissions. Since roughly 640 million of the 650 million bulbs sold each year in this fast-growing economy are incandescents, the potential for cutting carbon emissions, reducing air pollution, and saving consumers money is huge.
At the industry level, Philips, the world's largest lighting manufacturer, has announced plans to discontinue marketing incandescents in Europe and the United States by 2016. More broadly, the European Lamp Companies Federation (the bulb manufacturers' trade association) is supporting a rise in EU lighting efficiency standards that would lead to a phase-out of incandescent bulbs.
At the commercial level, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, announced a marketing campaign in November 2006 to boost its sales of compact fluorescents to 100 million by the end of 2007, more than doubling its annual sales. In Britain, Currys, Britain's largest electrical retail chain, has announced that it will discontinue selling incandescent light bulbs.
Switching light bulbs is an easy way of realizing large immediate gains in energy efficiency. A study for the U.S. government calculated that the gasoline equivalent of the energy saved over the lifetime of one 24-watt compact fluorescent bulb is sufficient to drive a Prius (hybrid gas/electric car) from New York to San Francisco.
While a worldwide phase out of the inefficient incandescents would reduce world electricity use by more than three percent, shifting to more-efficient street lighting and replacing older fluorescent tubes with newer, more-efficient ones might double this reduction in power use.
Although highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs have been around for a generation, they have until recently been on the fringe, used only by environmentally-minded consumers and typically sold in hardware stores, but not in supermarkets. One reason consumers lacked interest was that the new bulbs can cost five times as much as incandescents. Only the more knowledgeable consumers knew that an incandescent bulb uses only one-fourth as much electricity, lasts 10 times as long, and easily saves 50 dollars during its lifetime.
One disadvantage of compact fluorescents is that each bulb contains a small amount of mercury, roughly one-fifth the amount in a watch battery. This mercury is only a small fraction of that released into the atmosphere by the additional coal burned to power an incandescent.
Mercury released by coal-fired power plants is the principal reason why 44 of the 50 states in the United States have issued mercury intake advisories limiting the consumption of fish from freshwater streams and lakes. Nonetheless, worn-out compact fluorescents, watch batteries, and other items that contain mercury still need to be recycled properly. Fortunately, this is possible, whereas the mercury spewing from coal smokestacks blankets the countryside, ending up in the water and food supply.
Shifting to the highly efficient bulbs sharply reduces monthly electricity bills and cuts carbon emissions, since each standard (13-watt) compact fluorescent over its lifetime reduces coal use by more than 210 pounds. Such a shift also substantially reduces air pollution, making it obviously attractive for fast-growing economies plagued with bad air like China and India.
In the United States, an ingenious website called 18seconds.org (the name derives from the time it takes to change a light bulb) provides a running tally of compact fluorescents sold nationwide since Jan. 1, 2007. As of early May, it totaled nearly 37 million bulbs, yielding a reduction in carbon emissions comparable to taking 260,000 cars off the road.
Sponsored by Yahoo! and Neilson, the site also provides data on how many dollars are being saved and how much less coal is burned. Data are available on the website for each state, providing a convenient way of monitoring local progress in replacing incandescents.
In a world facing almost daily new evidence of global warming and its consequences, there is a need for a quick decisive victory in the effort to cut carbon emissions and stabilize climate. If we can engineer a rapid phase-out of incandescent light bulbs it would provide just such a victory, generating momentum for even greater advances in climate stabilization.
Lester R Brown is president of the Earth Policy Institute and the author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



30 Comments so far
Show AllEven if the amount of mercury in each bulb is small, the widespread production (and, yes, eventual disposal) of these bulbs will lead to this highly toxic material's release into the environment. A truly non-toxic alternative should have been found before this product was touted as a cure-all for our energy problems.
Also, "fluorescent" seems to be misspelled in the photo caption.
David:
Meantime they could require a recycling deposit or a credit toward purchase of a new one if you turn in the old one.
It's all about money, has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the environment clean. They come out with a new bulb, couldn't get anybody to buy into it so their going to force you to buy into it.
Am I correct in believing that LED's outperform flourescent in terms of efficiency, longevity, and have no dangerous pollutants?
Most people don't know how toxic mercury is. Most don't know it's in all flouresent light bulbs. Education on the topic would help. Also a place to recycle them would be good. Our local garbage tranfer station accept them for recylceing.
Good point Rickster.
There seems to be a deliberate scheme to bamboozle us into feeling we addressed global warming by buying crap. Why don't you simply turn lights off when you leave a room? And, at any rate, LED lighting under development is 20 time more efficient yet, and cheap if mass-produced - maybe too cheap to make much money.
Any suggestion for even the most minor lifestyle changes are forbidden - the sort of measures in the Carter days, mandatory building thermostat limits and lower speed limits, are our of the question nowadays.
LED is the future, but you are supposed to buy these first.
RECYCLE!
I run everything off 12v and I can't find white 12v LED bulbs, so for now I converted an 8-D cell camp lantern for light. It uses the same murcury bulb.
Ban the incandescents ! Across the world !
Incandescents use more electricity than fluorescents, but that's because they give off more heat. In some parts of the world, like Canada, where I live, that heat does not go to waste for most of the year. If I'm getting less heat at home from my light bulbs between October and April, I'm going to be replacing that heat by burning more fossil fuels in my furnace.
I will also burn fossil fuels driving to the other side of town to recycle my mercury-laden fluorescents and to buy new light fixtures that the compact fluorescents will fit into. And I can forget about using dimmer switches with fuorescents.
And that bit about lasting 10 times as long as incandescents? Don't believe it.
I've got these throughout the house. Looking at my bills
we have definitely saved from their use.I haven't replaced a single one in two years. The wattage is much lower but illumination is just as good. They work.
These are given away free in Australia from lots of sources, but generally funded through the NSW State Greenhouse Office. You can also get a free audit of your household funded through the same programme.
Yes its a great plan in theory but I agree with the drawbacks about the mercury and capitalism involved.
I would also submit the drawback that I don't think the light from fluorescents is NEARLY as good as the incandescents. The cheap ones especially really bother my eyes and make poor lighting for working, cooking, reading...living in. There are good ones that are full spectrum but SPENDY. So if we banned incandescents here in the States I would be rather pissed.
LED is definitely the real way to go.
A truly non-toxic alternative should have been found before this product was touted as a cure-all for our energy problems.
Tell us David , shoulda , coulda , woulda what is the truly non-toxic alternative that shoulev been found besides no light at all ?
Are flooressents more or less conducive to climate change ? If progressives hold back a good idea while holding out for the perfect idea then they will get neither.
Worrying about the spelling of floresent while polar bears drown is the equivalent of theologians in the middle ages arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
Turning them in when they burn out (is this an option?) is fine, but light bulbs do tend to break and not everyone cares enough to return things rather than simply throwing them out. In fact, most people probably don't, unless they really feel strongly about it or there's money in it for them. Regarding LEDs, I thought there was gallium or some other mildly toxic/radioactive high-number elements in those. Or at least there was when LEDs first came out. Does anyone here know more about this?
I've used CFL bulbs for a few years now, longer than they have been trendy, and they really do make a difference. I've not noticed any reduction in light quality, especially in the more modern bulbs, but I've certainly seen my electric bill go down. And I'm glad to see that in most of the wal-marts I've been in lately, the bulbs have overtaken the front and center spot in the display racks while incandescents have been banished to the bottom racks, almost invisible. This is a great thing. Even specialty bulbs are now coming in CFL, the technology has truly arrived. The more that is done to relegate the old bulbs to the scrap heap of history is a good thing.
No, the mercury isn't a great thing, but as the article states, the reduction in coal used makes up for it many times over. No solution is perfect, but this is an improvement. As to LED's, they're a great up and coming technology and without a doubt the future lies with them as the next revolutionary step. But my own experience with LED lighting isn't encouraging... they're absolutely incredible for small lighting purposes, anything less than the lighting of a room is ideal for LED such as flashlights, low-intensity appliance lighting, you name it. But as a hobbyist who works with LED lighting, I can tell you the strongest LED's available just can't light a room. By the time you cluster enough 3-watt Luxeon LED's to match a 13-watt CFL in lighting power, you're up to around the same power usage anyhow but at something like $50 a bulb. Sorry, that's just not gonna cut it. I'm sure LED will get to the point it's the next big thing, but it's not there yet. Believe me, when it does I'll be all over it, but it's time is not now.
As to the canadian "heat from incandescents in cold climates" argument, come on. You people have summers too, and the additional cooling required in the summer months has to at least come close to offsetting the additional needs of winter heat, and besides I really doubt that incandescent light bulbs are the most efficient way of producing a few degrees of heating. And in warmer climes, cooling costs vastly outweigh heating. Sorry, not buying the argument.
And yes, by the way, I have gotten years of use out of CFL bulbs. They weather fluctuations in voltage better too, I had a lamp at one time that liked to flicker, and it would blow regular bulbs like they were going out of style. I put an early CFL in it, and it lasted quite a while.
Nikola Tesla was the original inventor of fluorescent lighting- 100 years ago, along with neon lights, remote control, radio and other amazing technologies. He also invented the WIRELESS transmission of electricity to light his various bulbs. Sadly, only his A/C power transmission inventions were realized. He was the electrical engineer that designed the Niagra Falls power station, proving the greater efficiency of A/C over D/C. Thomas Edison, king of D/C, hated this, and he executed numerous neighborhood pets to prove A/C was a danger to the world. Edison was partly responsible for discrediting Tesla, which kept us from enjoying a world that would have been less polluted, using Tesla's green technologies. The crazy thing is, there are brilliant scientists out there right now, developing new technolgies that create power from vast amounts of energy available all around us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla wasn't the only scientist thwarted decades ago from developing clean, free energy sources: Thomas Henry Moray, had a motor in the 20s that numerous scientists and government officials witnessed, that operated "supposedly stimulating the existing oscillations of radiant energy from space" but the patent office refused to allow a patent- because nobody could yet explain just how it worked, but it did, and it ran cold, produced 50KW, and ran for several days without stopping, which no batteries could have accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Moray
Tesla talked 100 years ago about how we needed "sustainable" technologies. The moneyed powers-that-be do not invest in technologies that people can have for free, and do not invest in machinery that never wears out. Our planetary demise is totally about the money, always has been, and will be, as we all jitterbug our last, starving, thirsty, hot-as-hell days away. I like to think maybe we still have time, if we start supporting scientists who are taking up where Tesla and Moray left off, but honestly, the rich who own the world don't care- they are checking out space travel and looking for a fresh,new planet to invade; why not, they have the money.
in this article, two small paragraphs devoted to mercury poisoning??
if you really want an "easy way of realizing large immediate gains in energy efficiency", turn off the damn lights when you're not in the room. build green. demand and receive 30mpg automobiles, minimum across the board. re-instate 55 mph hiway driving. take the 500 billion invested in the takeover of a foreign country's natural resource and instead invest in solar (it rises and sets free every day - therein lies the reason for failure to develop it, who gains - ah, but i digress) and wind (in abundant supply in and around our nation's and all our states capitals). one must ask, who is pushing this agenda? who really stands to gain in this fluorescent march into our homes? want fluorescent? go visit a hospital.
LEDs will be better -- someday. Global warming is today. So, leaving the mercury issue aside for now, wide-scale adoption of florescent bulbs in lieu of incandescent is a price and availability issue [there's also a lousy lighting issue]. So, give the things away to consumers. Finance that with a tax on "privatized" utility companies [leave the coops alone] where the "free-marketeers" have allowed rate increases to rocket upward. After all, the energy savings flowing from the bulbs will overcome the need for new generating facilities. Phase in free LEDs when available. Of course, all this requires a strong, central government and a working partnership between government, business and us citizens -- like those in progressive, developed countries at the cutting edge of tech, e.g., Japan, S. Korea, et al. That, however, is antithetical to the plantation economic model of the present administration [that's where 98/99% work like he** to survive and are discarded when sick, injured or too old to work, while the remainder rule and profit; modern-day eugenics].
The argument that the CFB can be recycled, where the mercury in coal fired plants just spews out over the countryside was the most convincing one for me. Of course I changed out my bulbs about a year and a half ago, and have only had one or two needing recycling.
I was forced to install fluorescent bulbs at a place of work. They flicker, the dimmer does not work with them. Fluorescent lighting is already in many places of business but I'll be damned if I want it in my home. The light is not the same quality, as it makes even yourself look uglier. I also live in an area where I appreciate the heat from regular bulbs.
Don't forget our workers in the US. Check out www.screwthebulb.org and sign the petition to try to get GE to keep their US citizens employed making the new CFL bulbs here in their plants, instead of in China. This is important, too.
An article filled with breezy generalities.
I would like to know what advice the Lexus Liberals and Porsche Progressives have for the single mom working the $6/hour job--that she REALLY, MUST buy that flourescent at fifteen-bucks-a-pop, rather than getting a four-pack of 100 watt incandescents at $1.20?
Zooeyhall, they would most likely advise you to go to Walmart and buy a 6-pack for $15. BUT, they aren't forcing you to buy anything! They are removing incandescent bulbs from the market by 2010. An increase in CFL production to accommodate the lack of incandescent bulbs should lower the price of CFLs considerably by 2010.
Reading some of these comments reminded me of a quote I read on CommonDreams just the other day in Sean Gonsalves's "The Global Warming Conspiracy?": "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck.
I'm all for a reduction in electricity use for lighting, though I'd like to see more people opting to just TURN THE DAMNED LIGHT OFF WHEN YOU'RE NOT USING IT. It's like putting subways in Taipei: they said it would reduce traffic, but in the end it only paved (well, tunnelled) the way for more people to go places, entirely separate from the steady and ongoing increase in car traffic. Make something easier and people just do more of it, like the invention of a remote control for your TV. The Hummer-esque body on a Blazer chassis. 100% recycled-paper junk mail.
I fear this CFL movement will have a similar effect. There is a potential for a reduction of electricity demand, but you won't see it on the whole because people will just use more lighting, or simply use the "surplus" electricity with other equipment. It's human nature: you refinance your home to reduce payments, and then go and blow the savings on some other regular expenditure. This is how humans act.
And in the meantime, the surge in demand for CFL is going to bottom-out the level of quality as el-cheapo manufacturers swarm to get a piece of the action. Longer-lasting? Non-flicker? Clean disposal? Best-practices manufacturing? Not likely in a booming market. These same basic pitfalls can/will be true for LEDs.
You can't escape Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only true way to honestly attack this critical problem is going to be to find a way to get by with less, to get by doing less, to demand quality in what we buy and accountability from those who make and sell. Otherwise it's just a big waste of effort: a lot of motion and very little movement.
For me the mercury issue is a big issue. I read recently about a family in Maine, where a CFL broke in the daughter's room,and are now stuck with a $2,000.00 clean up bill and a taped off room in there house!!! Really how practical is that? You buy a bulb to help the environment, it breaks, now you have toxic material in your house, which local and state agency's won't help clean up, and a bill because your responsible for the cleanup? Here's the link: http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7446&Itemid=31
Until there are measures in place to avoid and assist in situations like this i dont think it's is practical. I dont want to have to call in a clean-up crew just because of a dam lightbulb, i dont care how efficient it is. Let's be real, and the fact that we are not hearing much about this, the fact your average person may not have any idea that this could possibly be a scenario they will have to deal with just makes it sit uneasy with me.
If we want the most efficiency and then why not LED's? Why stop somewhere in between on the efficiency ladder? Why not make LED's a national issue, let's take that from "an upcoming technology" which IS here now, and make it the new CFL's?
Great. Hasn't ANYONE paid attention to the number of photosensitive neurological conditions? I find it really disturbing that there's no allowances being made for such conditions. Am I supposed to go back to candlelight or up my medications? I've tried a lot of CFL's and they all trigger problems with my neuro conditions - and I'm just one of many. As it stands, I avoid or minimize my time stores and businesses, I'd hate to have to spend all my time at home in the dark. Couldn't we at least wait for the proposed mercury free fluorescents so we're not risking everyone's health?
Does anyone know if LED lights flicker?
This seems like another feel good issue. The mercury issue is a serious one but what about the extra energy (and pollution) that goes into the electronic ballast, the glass base AND the heavy duty plastic packaging CFL's are sold in? As far as the packaging goes maybe the manufacturers should redesign the packaging to be used as a recycling vessel for safe return of the lights for recycling? Also the article states that if all incandescents are banned worldwide that will result in a reduction of electricity use by 3 percent. With electrical consumption growing at an average of 2-3 percent per year (for the last couple of decades) in the US and EU the gains claimed would be eaten up less than two years. The TRUE answer is conservation in all that we do, not shopping for CFL's in our hemp grocery bags and then lying to ourselves that we've really done something noble on the way to the mall.
Smug with virtue, I got my landlord to screw in my overhead fluorescent that cost me as much as a couple of chickens. It lasted less than two weeks.
I'm a disabled senior. I'm spending a lot of time worrying over whether I'm going to try another or wait until they remove my options. Maybe something's wrong with the fixture? Maybe I should buy them someplace else? I notice the hardware store now has them marked down in a bin -- maybe a bad batch?
I don't need this.
So don't use 'em if ya don't want to. The rest of us don't care how much your electric bill is. As far as the mercury issue, how difficult is it to put that CFL aside and turn it in on Hazardous Waste Disposal Day in your community?
I use CFLs in many of my fixtures and lamps but am still sticking with incandescents where a rheostat (dimmer) is in play. I have yet to find a dimmable CFL that has a wide range of adjustment.
You may not be aware that there is a WIDE selection of CFLs designed for specific applications: three-way type bulbs (excellent for reading and desktop), floods for recessed cans, capsule-style for exposed fixtures (eg. ceiling fan light), candelabra-style (small-base chandelier and specialty lamps), yellow bug lights and exterior spots and floods. And they come in varying wattages and lumens (brightness). Of course less watts = less cost to operate. The general rule-of-thumb I go by when selecting CFL wattage for an incandescent I'm wanting to replace is divide incandescent wattage by 3 to get the applicable CFL ie. 60 watts incandescent = 20 watts CFL.
Readers on fixed or low incomes should check with their local electric utility. There's a good chance they offer assistance in the guise of a technical specialist who will visit your home, change out your incandescents with CFLs for free and show you some other great ways to cut your electric bill AND contribute to the greater good of the planet.
Mr. Brown is typical of the upper-middle-class elite that has no inkling of the cash flow problems of the middle class and the poor.
I tried to get the mercury out of a broken thermometer once, using a lighter.
I no more touched the flame to the bulb and it popped!
I exhaled; ran out of the room and waited until… until… hell I forgot what I was going to say!
True story though!
If you put either CFL or LED next to an AM radio you can hear the electronics generating a frequency.